- reverse pyromania
- Posts
- Fighter vs Non-Fighter Is It
Fighter vs Non-Fighter Is It
We must be seen as fighters before anything else
I had this scheduled to go out yesterday morning, but then the Iran attack happened. I still think it’s relevant, and I have some Iran-related content at the end:
Kay dropped this in the comments yesterday, and others on Bluesky (including Cole) have referenced it:
Americans are unhappy with the way things are going in the country, and don’t feel particularly well represented by either major political party. In our new February Strength In Numbers/Verasight poll, 53% of U.S. adults say the Democratic Party is out of touch with the concerns of most Americans. An identical percentage — 53% — say the same about Republicans.
The conventional reading of numbers like these — especially after Kamala Harris’s loss in 2024 — is that when voters say a party is “out of touch,” they mean so in terms of ideology. For the Democrats, for example, “out of touch” gets mapped onto “too progressive” — with the implication that to become “in touch,” the party needs to tack to the ideological center.
Our February poll tested this assumption directly, and the assumption is simply wrong. When Americans say Democrats are “out of touch” they don’t only — or even primarily — mean “too progressive.” This type of thinking is another example of people committing the Strategist’s Fallacy instead of thinking about what is really being measured by the poll question being asked.
Whether a party is “in touch” or “out of touch,” we found, is a product of more than just ideological perceptions. In our survey, U.S. adults call Democrats weak (48%), ineffective (47%), and out of touch — but also empathetic (54%) and principled (49%). They call Republicans extreme (60%), elitist (57%), and cruel (51%). Both parties have brand problems. But the kind of problem is fundamentally different from what most people are assuming — and that difference matters enormously for 2026.
Today’s Chart of the Week: Americans — including swing voters — say Democrats should fight harder, not moderate. Republicans, in contrast, have a major extremism and cruelty problem. I sit down and actually do the math on how many votes Democrats could flip by messaging on ideology versus fighting for what members believe in.
Read the whole thing. It reinforces what a lot of observers have been saying for the last year or so.
I want to add one observation: if you’re trying to convince someone to vote for you because of your policy positions, your policy positions don’t really matter if people don’t believe that you can get them enacted. It’s like the some old guy who can barely take a walk around the block telling you he’s going to run a marathon. There’s a fundamental credibility issue that needs to be addressed before any further conversation is possible.
In other words, fixing the branding problem comes first before policy. And that means getting something done when we gain a slim majority (if we even get that done). We need Democrats who have the mentality of Tim Walz and the Minnesota DFL, who enacted progressive legislation with a one-vote majority. What we don’t need is a bunch of fucking excuses and lumpy mashed potato messaging.
With that in mind, let’s look at three examples of Democratic messaging on Iran. First, short, sweet and right, from Ilhan Omar:
The American people are sick and tired of endless wars built on false promises and paid for with innocent lives. Congress must immediately pass Khanna-Massie War Powers Resolution.
— Ilhan Omar (@ilhanmn.bsky.social)2026-02-28T22:16:27.945Z
Does anything more need to be said? I think not. Mamdani did well:

Now, the “leaders” of the party:

What do these guys want to do? Does Schumer want to pass a resolution to stop the war? Or just one that has “clarity”? I honestly don’t understand their position. The first rule of fighting is that you need to fight for something, and I don’t even understand the thing they’re fighting for.
Reply